On various occasions, those in the evolutionary community make a "big splash" propagating their views. That very thing happened in 2002 when John Rennie, the editor of Scientific American, published a caustic article titled "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" that he, personally, had authored. The same type of thing also occurred in the July 29, 2002 issue of U.S. News & World Report when Thomas Hayden, a staff writer for that popular newsmagazine, published a cover-story article titled "A Theory Evolves." Both of those articles, of course, sought to establish evolution as a "fact" that is accepted by all "intelligent people." Simultaneously, the authors of the articles also sought to denigrate creationists by depicting them as "backwoods bubbas" who should be sent packing with a gentle wave of the hand and a quiet pat on the head.

When those two publications released their attacks upon creationism, our offices responded--quickly and effectively. Dr. Brad Harrub (our Director of Scientific Information) and I co-authored in-depth, exhaustive reviews of both articles, in which we examined the evolutionists' arguments point by point, and dismantled them piece by piece--demonstrating their fallacious nature in the process. Each of the rebuttals was placed prominently on the home page of our Web site, where they were viewed by thousands and thousands of people around the world. Links to the articles appeared on creationist Web sites, church Web sites, home-schooling Web sites, and other places, with strong recommendations that people view the articles and pass them on to others. The extensive rebuttals we produced demonstrated that the evolutionists' arguments can be answered--and refuted.

Now, evolutionists have decided to try to make another "big splash." The November 2004 issue of National Geographic asked the rhetorical question (in giant, 250-point bold maroon type on its cover): WAS DARWIN WRONG? Needless to say, the answer--provided in a 33-page-long feature story--was "NO! The evidence for evolution is overwhelming!"

With great flourish, and its archetypical gorgeous color photographs, National Geographic painted a picture of evolution as a concept that is accepted by "every attentive person." And, conversely, the author of the article, David Quammen (whose self-confessed specialty is literature, not science!), assured his readers that those who do not believe in evolution "live in confusion and ignorance."

Enough is enough! Once again, the staff at Apologetics Press has arisen to the challenge of responding to the evolutionists' ancient arguments and insulting innuendoes. Dr. Harrub and I have produced an incredibly extensive rebuttal to the November 2004 issue of National Geographic. And when I say "extensive," I mean it! The refutation consumes 55 pages of a Microsoft Word document! The article, "National Geographic Shoots Itself in the Foot--Again!" (https://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2644, is available on-line at our Web site in both html and PDF formats for your convenience. The rebuttal examines National Geographic's arguments one by one, and scientifically demolishes them point by point.)

If you live in Minnesota, you may have heard about the process to replace the discontinued and discredited "Profile of Learning." Overall, removing the busywork that took time from legitimate educational pursuits will be good, but it looks like the indoctrination in evolution will continue. The time for commenting on the proposed standards is now closed.

For a letter from Senator Santorum regarding the Santorum Amendment as it applies to teaching the controversy, click HERE.

If you live in Minnesota, you may have heard about the process to replace the discontinued and discredited "Profile of Learning." Overall, removing the busywork that took time from legitimate educational pursuits will be good, but it looks like the indoctrination in evolution will continue. The time for commenting on the proposed standards is now closed.

A TCCSA Board Member, who attended one of the public forums where citizens were given the opportunity to offer input, described the meeting as "uncivilized." There were enough people signed up for three minute speeches to fill four hours. Right from the beginning, the chair failed to control the meeting. One of the standards committee members, a Minnesota legislator, an anti-creationist, when supposedly simply stating name and district, took the opportunity to give a long impassioned, opinion-based pep talk putting down those who sought to infiltrate and poison the curriculum process toward presenting creation. His goal appeared to be to rally the backers of evolution into a heightened emotional state, giving them implicit permission to act in a rowdy manner throughout the duration of the meeting. The hall was packed with anti-creationists. Whenever someone said anything favorable to creation, they were rudely interrupted with hisses and boos. The two atheists speakers were treated with respect, and even cheered. There was a lack of fairness evident in the information-gathering phase of this curriculum review process. The reason? Some people have the audacity to propose teaching both sides of the controversy.

For a commentary on the guidelines by Ross Olson, click HERE.

For a letter to all the members of the Minnesota Science Standards Committee by Bryce Gaudian click HERE.

For a letter by Ross Olson to the Star Tribune, regarding the teaching of intelligent design, click HERE.

For a letter from Senator Santorum regarding the Santorum Amendment as it applies to teaching the controversy, click HERE.

There was a big controversy regarding the Minneapolis preview of the movie "Expelled"